Official announcement: Hot off the presses. Next Civ game in development!!!!!!!

[reddishrecue]

Like the civilization 4 future tech used to say, the future will be better tomorrow.

 

[Thormodr]

The Polygon article announcing the new game says "Beach directed Civilization 6 and was a designer on 2010’s Civilization 5." What's the difference between a game director and a game designer?

Well, Ed Beach stepped in after the unmitigated disaster that was the Civilization 5 launch and the lead designer Jon Shafer walking away less than a year later leaving Firaxis in a terrible bind. So, they were two different situations.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

What's the difference between a game director and a game designer?

Based on the terms alone, I’m going to assume a “game director” has wider influence than just design. Wikipedia says it’s an interchangeable term for “game producer” and they have a role similar to a film director. It’s probably a position similar to lead game designer, though- the leader of the game designers who had the most influence over the final product.

 

[tedhebert]

About the Neolithic debate...

I played Humankind in beta and after release, and I didn't like it (EDIT: the neolithic phase I mean) at all, to my surprise. I thought I would like it, but in the end it felt useless.

Still, I'm wondering if this idea could be used for CIV 7 in this way:

You choose (or get if you play random civs) a CIV when you start the game... Then you go through a Neolithic phase of some kind... not too long, let's say 15 to 30 turns somewhat...

THEN, after a certain event/threshold has been reached, you get to choose from a pool of possible leaders for that civ, all with specific strengths and tweaks. That choice would be made after getting a certain amount of information about the map, the resources, the neighbors etc...

I think this could be an interesting take on the start game, without completely denaturing the game feel. And possibly make alternate leaders much more worthwhile than they are now

Discuss ;-)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Yes, it seemed that Abton Strenger was being groomed for the role but it didn't work out for whatever reason.

Ed Beach certainly has the most experience and was the obvious choice.

Considering he was the lead for GS, my favorite of the expansions, I have high hopes.

 

[Thormodr]

Considering he was the lead for GS, my favorite of the expansions, I have high hopes.

GS was really good, yeah. He clearly is very talented.

While I'm sure Ed Beach will do an excellent job with Civ VII, there is that little bit of worry that he'll end up making Civ 6.5.

So, in that, I eagerly await any videos that detail the direction Civ VII will take.

 

[bbbt]

Do people actually want a 'neolithic start' so to speak in that they want to have different tasks and experiences before founding a city?

Or do they primarily actually want to just be able to see the map/starting location before choosing a Civ?

As iirc Old World has a game option like "Choose Civ when founding first city" which could be a good option for Civ 7 (though it would prevent designs like the Maori).

 

[InsidiousMage]

As iirc Old World has a game option like "Choose Civ when founding first city" which could be a good option for Civ 7 (though it would prevent designs like the Maori).

It does and it's great because a) you can choose a civ that fits your starting location and b) lets you start a game without having to use the random option if you aren't sure who you want to play as. I think such a feature is more necessary is Civ given that starting locations have a massive impact on your game. I hate having to restart when I get a desert start as Russia, for example.

Also, it wouldn't prevent designs like the Maori because you can still pick who you want to play as as usual.

 

[MrRadar]

I believe this is all the Neolithic stuff a civ game needs, perfectly balanced in a couple of lines of exposition:



Unless players want a crossover with smth like ARK: Survival (maybe minus the dinosaurs), with an intro game where they would see, if they can survive the elements and fellow pretenders to the role of a tribe leader, and thus get a confirmation that they’re qualified to play a game of civ

 

[reddishrecue]

I believe this is all the Neolithic stuff a civ game needs, perfectly balanced in a couple of lines of exposition:



Unless players want a crossover with smth like ARK: Survival (maybe minus the dinosaurs), with an intro game where they would see, if they can survive the elements and fellow pretenders to the role of a tribe leader, and thus get a confirmation that they’re qualified to play a game of civ

Good old stuff

 

[Thormodr]

Good old stuff

The best.

 

[Gorbles]

What I meant was a graphic style influenced by Pixar and Warcraft. I should have written that instead, so no misunderstandings could be made.

But that I mentioned these two in particular was quite intentional. The ways the leaders are depicted in Civ 6 looks very similar to the style used for people in Pixar movies. There are probably other studios that makes animated films for children that use a similar style, but Pixar did this style first to my knowledge.

Ahh, I see. I appreciate the clarification, though I think I still disagree! But that's best saved for a completely different thread

Abstracting everything that happened in the Neolithic Era, which included the first city building and multiple Technologies that were fundamental to virtually every example of city-building that followed is abstracting to the point of fantasy.

Why stop there? Let's go further back in the Stone Age! Let's take the game right back to just past the edge of the prehistoric. Let's really get nitty-gritty.

To be clear: I don't think this would be at all a popular design, but I'm not suggesting it to be sarcastic. I'm pointing out that abstractions are necessary. You said you understand my point, but you simply disagree with it. That's fair. But your claim that abstracting the Neolithic Era (and only the Neolithic) is abstracting to the point of fantasy is nothing more than your preference. It's not games design. It's rooted in your desire to see a specific part of history modeled within the game.

But I never said, had you bothered to read the post, that fantasy was bad.

You're right, I should've phrased it better. I did read the post though, in its entirety.

You say you accept fantasy as an inherent part of a lot of games, but you object to fantasy here when specific things are abstracted beyond a personal threshold (for you, personally). This is what I meant when I said "fantasy is bad", and that wasn't clear. My bad.

The game is billed and marketed as Historical 4X - in fact, the Civ franchise practically defined Historical 4X for decades. They didn't bill it as Fantastic Historical or Abstracted Historical or fantastically abstracted, they sold it as Historical and then in far too many places they cheated because it was easier to abstract a fantasized version of history than get the history right in the first place. I call that false advertising and, to repeat, Bad Game Design.

And I call that unrealistic expectations.

It's okay to say "there was a flawed concept in another strategy game I'd like to see Civ attempt at do better at". It's less okay to reverse-engineer a definition of "bad game design" because you don't like how Civ abstracts history, and has always abstracted history. If your issue with abstractions in Civ are this severe, they'll have always been there. So what attracts you to the franchise, and why is this "bad game design" now suddenly an issue where it wasn't before? Is there a progression from I to VI that you fear will get worse in VII?

 

[Vincent_lacruz]

The neolithique stuff could be used as a way to select the civ power among several options. So not have a civ set in stone, but something more versatile depending on the start position. Think of choices such as pantheons, but with options depending on the civ. Some categories would be exclusive to a civ (think of the civ unique power), others would have overlap between civilizations (more generic bonus close to pantheons).

That way you would have less chance to have starts completly conterproductive with your civ (portugal starting with a "sea" of 10 case...), and civ would be far more diverse (no need to have numerous leaders as in VI to have some variations...).

So neolithic would be the start, you would have to unlock/research the mean to expand (aka settler) and develop (builder) your civ. And instead of city, you begin with a "nomadic tribe" that gather ressources like a city but can move (slowly) but can produce basic units (scout or weakened footmens). The "traits" of your civ would be unlocked using food (other ressources like culture and science being either omitted, or converted into food equivalent), and unlocking all of them would give you the option of "founding capital".

 

[SirNovelty]

When it comes to the Neolithic stuff, I'm personally very much not on board. Lately my biggest issue with Civ VI is how long it takes for my games to start feeling really distinct or like my decisions are paying off. It's a subjective and arbitrary line, but I'd personally like to see ways that the early game can be sped up, not slowed down. I started noticing this after playing a lot of Old World, where you start with some basic techs depending on Civ selection, you get immediate bonuses for each Family you found a city with, and it features more freeform Wonder unlocks (not that I'm recommending that for Civ, I think it has some issues that are difficult to resolve for Old World, and near impossible without its other systems). In that game I usually feel like I'm reaping strong fruits of my decisions by turn 10, something I don't really experience in Civ beyond getting a super early pantheon through map luck. As I get less and less time to put towards games, I value that immediacy more and more, although with Civ's scope I acknowledge that accelerating the early game would mean they have to flesh out the middle and late game more.....which I think should be a high priority anyway.

 

[AntSou]

Because 4X games (explore, expand, exploit, exterminate) are all about having more resources so you can then do more things. If you have more cities, you can build more buildings, more wonders, more units and so on. At some point, if want more cities so you can building more buildings(wonders, units, etc), you have to go conquer someone else because you don't have room to found new cities, its that simple. Even if you only get points for building things, not controlling things, then conquering more cities is still better because you can then build new buildings! Unless you only get points from cities you founded, which is an arbitrary limit.

But clearly, you don't? Where's the expansion when playing with Maya? Or the extermination when playing Canada? What's with the all One City Challenges or Civs (Venice) designed with OCC in mind? How often do you read users saying they avoid wars entirely? The four Xs are guidelines, not rules written into stone. The games can be whatever you make them, whether it works or not is a matter of creativity of the designers. That doesn't mean they need to reinvent the wheel each time, but trying to invent new ways to play beyond the established conventions is how you keep it fresh.

Case in point, Old World detaches movement points from quantity of units. Your approach, applied here, would be something like: "the end game becomes tiresome because more units and cities implies the need for more decisions. Attempting to change this would be an arbitrary limit."

Just like the amount of possible "orders" does not need to follow a linear path roughly equivalent and tied to the amount of units/cities, expansion isn't an inevitable element, it's a requirement which derives from how the victory conditions are designed, and the manners made available to achieve those conditions.

I can't stress this enough. Designing the game to limit expansion isn't any more arbitrary than designing the game to favour expansion. I'm opposed to both designs. The first one has been attempted and failed, the second one has become too much of a comfortable box.

More resources doesn't/shouldn't automatically imply the need for more cities, even if that is the most straightforward path.

No, its pretty much one-to-one conquest to cultural high point even if it isn't an immediate effect. During the late Republic, Rome's imperial conquests were so lucrative that the Senate cancelled a bunch of taxes.

Wait, how do you get to the point of the imperial conquests? Why are you immediately jumping the cultural innovations of the office of the Dictator, the army reforms, and the plethora of other aspects which characerized the Republic of Rome?

Could you please define "culture high point". I'm curious as to what you consider to be objetive variables of cultural superiority.

The Mongols are another obvious example.

How exactly? Does not the cultural tradition and mastery of bowmanship and horse-riding made possible the conquests in the first place? How can your "cultural high point" exclude the culture itself?

You're equating "cultural high point" with "owning a large territory which controls millions of people" to conclude that territorial expansion leads to a "cultural high point". Well, yes, when defined in that way.

The Mughals in India as well. Medieval Baghdad's opulence and renown as a center of culture and learning was because it was the imperial capital of a large empire. Same for Ottoman Constantinople and other cities like Samarkand under Timor. Empire is lucrative, its what allows all of these great works of monumental architecture to be built in the first. In addition to the patronage of the arts and sciences by their rulers. That stuff isn't cheap and, historically speaking, the larger the territory you rule over the wealthier you are. And yes, I do believe if you are making a game based on history, you do need to, at least, get the big picture things right otherwise, why bother with history in the first place.

Uh? Why did Hadrian decide to abandon Parthia? Do you think the game reflects the difficulties which arise from an ever increasing empire effectively?

The wealth of the monarch was often less dependent on territorial extension and more on the quality and extension of the bureaucracy, the cultural norms and the technological innovations. Extraction of resources through military domination of peoples is of course one manner to obtain wealth. Yet the inability of the monarch to extract resources willy-nilly from its subjects, the increased protections given to private property, etc, was partially what made the British empire possible in the first place. Again here it's the cultural norms that precede empire.

historically speaking, the larger the territory you rule over the wealthier you are.

Historically speaking, the wealthier individuals to ever exist ruled over no territory at all. And how do you account for South Korea, Switzerland, Netherlands, etc having some of the highest GDPs in the world (total, not per capita)?

And the reason why I put "great" is brackets is because everyone has their own opinions about what constitutes a great empire and even whether or not its a valid concept. I was not questioning the fact that cultural high points are funded by conquests and large empires.

You're not questioning that cultural high points are funded by conquest and large empires, even as you concede that defining a cultural high point is a matter of opinion and maybe not even a valid concept?

Because in every game if you are eliminated from the game, you lose the game. Like, every game. Its how games work.

Only if you skew my words. I said "eliminated through conquest", clearly meaning being left with no cities on the board.

You keep making very confident remarks with absolute certainty about game design, apparently assuming my own suggestions aren't based in game designs I've already interacted with.

Small World is a very popular game where civilizational decline and being erased from the board is turned into a game mechanic. It's possible, and not even uncommon, to win the game even after nothing is left on the board. Many "Civs" are focused on expanding, Others on holding on to small territories, etc.

But really, just in general, many games do not require you to have anything left on the board. Scythe again comes to mind. Territory is only one way to gain VP.

Not to mention, what would you do after you were eliminated but before the game ended?

The easiest option is: nothing at all. I was talking in the context of a proper Score Victory and the skew towards domination oriented Civs that currently exists. One could accumulate enough score that, even if you're eliminated from the board, you'd still get first place come end game.

But it really doesn't take a lot to imagine ways in which you could play the game without controlling cities. You're again equating inability to conceive of possible designs with their impossibility. You could have a religion tied to your original Civ, for instance, and you could control the decisions of that religion despite of who controls the city which is its Holy City, and in that manner keep accruing points towards your end score.

Because you don't own it anymore. "Through time" means throughout the entire game so, if you don't control something why should you get points for it?

Why shouldn't you? It's a design choice.

Like, so many cities passed through various empires and nations throughout history, each adding to the city. Its like saying that since Antioch was founded by the Seleucid Empire, it should only be considered a Hellenistic Greek city, which is ridiculous.

No, that is your argument. You're the one saying there should be no such thing as "legacy" and that the conqueror takes all. Literally just above you argue that the only thing that matters is ownership. My entire position has been to argue against it.

In your own words, "various empires and nations added to the city", and you find it ridiculous that a city should then be associated with a single culture. Thank you, I agree. Which is why I keep suggesting that victory points should be granted for actions which "add to the city" (such as building Wonders) rather than simply "owning".

 

[AntSou]

I think there are some ways in which a Neolithic phase could maybe be made to work, even if Humankind has made me much more sceptical. I'm equating Neolithic entirely with "some sort of gameplay which occurs before founding a city". That's all I mean by it.

So the Neolithic question can maybe be rephrased as "what other options can be provided to the player, other than looking for Plains(Hills) close to a river?"


Here's a few of suggestions:

a) Your "Starting Settlers" are specific units not equivalent to latter settlers. They have higher movement point and sight and do not suffer terrain penalties. They also have Combat Strength. Let's say you start with two;

b) You can found a city after having no movement points left. You can found a city at any point, there's no threshold you need to achieve. Upon founding a city, any other "starting settlers" you may have convert into a basic military unit, or builder, or scout, or whatever. You get to choose;

c) You may occupy/join a "tribal village/whatever" with your starting settler and found a city there. Grants a unique tech/civic if you do so. The game tells you which free thing you'll receive. If you refuse, you get another "starting settler" instead. By having more starting settlers, you extend the territory you can see before deciding to settle, not forgetting that all superfluous starting settlers will convert into useful units of your choice upon founding a city;*

d) You get access to a "pantheon-like" pool of bonuses dependent on the settled tile or environment immediately upon founding a city. E.g. rather than "+1 production from fishing boats" in a universal pool tied to Faith, settling coast close to a river and wheat grants you access to a pool of bonuses tied to coast, rivers and bonus resources/wheat. You can only select one bonus. Other bonuses, such as settling near a mountain, will not be available to you in this case.

Meh, that's all.

---
* (instead of a free tech/civic, could also be something like a City-State bonus. So if you "join" a city-state, you get the bonus of the city-state for the rest of the game, and the city-state is no longer part of the available pool of city states in the game. Doing so blocks access to the "pantheon like" bonuses I mention in point d)).

 

[SirNovelty]

Small World is a very popular game where civilizational decline and being erased from the board is turned into a game mechanic. It's possible, and not even uncommon, to win the game even after nothing is left on the board. Many "Civs" are focused on expanding, Others on holding on to small territories, etc.

But really, just in general, many games do not require you to have anything left on the board. Scythe again comes to mind. Territory is only one way to gain VP.

The easiest option is: nothing at all. I was talking in the context of a proper Score Victory and the skew towards domination oriented Civs that currently exists. One could accumulate enough score that, even if you're eliminated from the board, you'd still get first place come end game.

I mean, those are both Board games, played at a table with other humans, and from a Google search (not played them myself) take about or less than 2 hours. I don't think most people would object to continuing to sit at a table shooting horsehocky with friends after being eliminated from a game, especially if that game is likely to end within an hour. I can't speak for everyone, but I sure as horsehocky am not watching the AI play a game of Civ with itself for as long as that might take to see if I might win. Even in a multiplayer context, Civ already has a massive problem with people quitting early if they fall behind, you'd have to do quite a bit of work to realistically expect them to stick around after being eliminated

But it really doesn't take a lot to imagine ways in which you could play the game without controlling cities. You're again equating inability to conceive of possible designs with their impossibility. You could have a religion tied to your original Civ, for instance, and you could control the decisions of that religion despite of who controls the city which is its Holy City, and in that manner keep accruing points towards your end score.

I want to comment on this because I think it's interesting, in general I find that adding different effects to the elimination of a Civ is unexplored design space in this genre, so color me intrigued, but I see two distinct problems potentially arising:

1. Will these sort of "post-mortem mechanics" be also available to a player before they get killed off? If so, we might excaberate Civ's existing problem of "click bloat" where turns just take too long, because if those mechanics are complex/interesting enough to engage a player on their own, they'd likely add a lot of turn time for a player who's still on the board. If not, we run into a second problem to resolve.

2. Can these sorts of mechanics result in a perverse incentive structure? If they're only available to a player after they're eliminated, can a player reach a point where the player is better off being wiped off the board then staying on a couple small cities? If these mechanics are enough to win the game with, almost certainly, and this would create a situation where a player tries to get themselves killed. Beyond being "unrealistic", in this context I think that's largely immaterial, I think it would compromise the game for other players. It would cheapen the experience for a conqueror to know that they're victim is trying to lose the war because they find it materially advantageous, it would frustrate uninvolved third parties to watch the conqueror easily further their snowball because the "victim" decided they're better off as a ghost, and it would warp the entire logic of military vs. economic investment if being conquered has material benefits that can help you win, rather than being a failstate to avoid.

 

[bbbt]

From all the contention, "Neolithic phase" seems like a perfect thing for them to bring in as an optional game mode down the line in Civ 7.

I would like to see them incorporate Old World's "choose your civ when you settle your city" out of the gate though.

Honestly, Old World had a number of set up options that would be great in Civ 7.

In terms of additional options, giving folks easy ways to customize the 'score' victory - and what counts for score - seems like it would be a fun way to allow players to easily come up with different variations of play. Maybe more so for multiplayer, as surely the AI would not be too keen on it.

I've also been thinking more about events. I'm not a huge fan of random events in 4x, and find they get old quickly. I don't even enjoy the random disasters in Civ. I really didn't like how they were done in Humankind. A little better in Old World. I think if events came in Civ, the best way to do them would be along the line of city state quests and the like - you get the option to choose a goal (one of several) and if you make it you get a reward. But I would also strongly want them optional since I'd likely turn them off quickly.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

If I had one feature I want to see in Civ 7 it's this:

An easy Build-a-Civ tool, using premade features.

You would choose the name, demonyms, leader's name, etc.
Pick an icon and color scheme
Pick an ability from a drop-down menu (for your leader too)
Pick a unit to be made unique
Pick its ability from a drop-down menu
pick a tech/civic for it to be unlocked
Name the unit
Pick a unit icon from a list
Pick a building/district or "new improvement" to be unique
Pick a trait for it from a menu
Pick an appearance for it from a menu
pick a tech/civic for it to be unlocked
Finally, an option to create a city list, or just name them as you go

Your first instinct might be that this would damper modding, but it really creates more opportunities. Modders can still create whole civ packages (which would likely be superior to what could be assembled ad hoc with the BaC tool). But they could also make all kinds of icons, unit and building appearances, abilities, etc to add to the Build-a-Civ tool.

That way a player could throw together whatever obscure, fantastical, or fictional civ they want without requiring artistic and programming skills, but modders with those skills could still contribute.

 

[pokiehl]

Agreed entirely @Eagle Pursuit. The art burden alone warrants this. It’s just not possible for most modders to make art that even approaches the quality of the art in the games now.

Having some way to make leader models and other assets easily would be phenomenal.